T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AM I LC AR FR AN CI SC O FUENTES A G U I LA R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 70851 A ge nc yN os . A 077- 755- 286

ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , M U R G U IA , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A m i l car F ranci sc o F uent es A gu i l ar , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f G uat em al a, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f

r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f or as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture



# FI LED OC T 12 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 70851 2 (“ C A T ”) . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s a n dr e v ie w d e n o v o le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s . W akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s f i nd i ng thatA gu i l ar , w ho w as never arre st ed, harm ed, or di re ct l y threa t ened w i th arr es tor harm i n G uat em al a, f a ile dto e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . See N ah rv an iv. G on zales , 399 F . 3d 1148, 1153- 54 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( no pa s tpe r s e c ut i on w he r e the pe t i t i one rw a s not phy s i c a l l yha rm e d orde t a i ne d a nd onl ys uf f e r e d de m in im is pr ope rtyda m a ge a nd vagu e threa t s) . S ub st ant i al evi dence al so supp ort s the agency’ s f i nd i ng that A g u i l a rf a i l e dt o d e mo n s tr a t e aw e l l - f o u n d e df e a ro f f u tu r e h a rm. See B elayneh v. I NS , 21 3 F . 3d 48 8, 49 1 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( fi nd i ng no w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on w here the pet i t i on ersuff er ed a bri ef

det ent i on m any y ears pri or t o h er a s y l um appl i c a t i on a nd ha d s i nc e r e turne d t o E thi opi athr e e t i m e s w i thout i n ci d en t ). A cco rd i n g l y, A g u i l ar’ s asyl u m cl ai m fai l s. B e c au s e A g u ila rh a s n o t e s tab lis h e de lig ib ilityf o ra s y lu m , h e n e c e s s a r ily c a n n o t m e e t th e m o r e s tr in g e n t s ta n d a r df o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. See Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 45 3 F . 3d 11 82 , 11 90 (9th C i r. 20 06 ).10- 70851 3 F i nal l y, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni al of C A T re l i ef because A gu i l arfa i l ed t o est abl i sh thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n othe w i l l be t ortured if r e tu rn e dto G u a te m a la . See Zhengv. H older , 64 4 F . 3d 82 9, 83 5-36 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.